We can't get out of the mess we're in by arguing with people and convincing them

The time for theorizing about autistic abstract principles is over

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRs2-_FvNcQ

>tune in randomly for random videos

The elites are afraid of this bald man

@Jym, Reagan was at one point a Marxist. Some of the greatest advocates of Capitalism began as opponents to it, i.e. Milton Friedman was at one point in time a Keynesian, and Thomas Sowell was at what point a Marxist, himself. Nonetheless, it is quite alarming how good Russians are at the art of subversion. It's absolutely mind-blowing when you take a look at their current activities.

They're so good at it, they're able to micro-manage rallies they organize and counter-rallies to those rallies.

It's been happening for quite some time, here in the US.

They don't care about ideology anymore, to be precise, advocating for as many extremes as they possibly can at one given point in time, despite all perfectly contrary to one another, just as they do with managing the perception of world-events.

It keeps us confused, divided, and destabilized, unable to come to any consensus on our interests, because we're unable to even establish a consensus on reality and our values.

They implement similar measures within Russia, today.

What's their goal using "similar measures" within Russia?

To maintain control, of course.

You're familiar with the Primakov doctrine?

No

It's an evolution of Soviet Maskirovka.

This is what Russia applies in modern times.

You may have heard it referred to as the "Gerasimov doctrine," perhaps.

There are many names for it.

Hybrid warfare.

NATO refers to it as hybrid-warfare; the US refers to it as cross-domain or full-spectrum operations.

But, before I get on this subject, I had typed up a reply for healthcare, then I'll open up my archive for you.

1/
"U.S. health care spending grew 3.9 percent in 2017, reaching $3.5 trillion or $10,739 per person. As a share of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, health spending accounted for 17.9 percent."

Measure the morality of policy by their results, not their intentions. I'm not saying do nothing, but what I am saying is, once you free the market by eliminating the geographical barriers restricting competition in the health insurance industry, you eliminate their ability to maintain a monopoly, thereby "jump-starting," if you will, competition between health insurance firms, which places downward pressure on healthcare providers to be more efficient. Allow me to explain:

The reason for this is because the health insurance firms want to be able to offer the greatest policy for the lowest cost to consumers, as you've broken up their monopoly. The healthcare providers will wish to maintain their networked status under the policies, as this means greater market-share for them as well, so they have no choice but to become efficient, reducing what they're billing to customers and insurance pools. Thus, the providers are also now competing against one another for market-share, eliminating fraud, malpractice, unnecessary services, overprescribing, top-heavy management and unionized labor, inefficient allocations of resources expended toward more expensive alternatives of goods and services, etc.

2/
As this is also unfolding, the price of medical degrees and certificates would lower, while you'll also see the industry undergo rapid machine-learning integration, such as that which we've seen in automated cataract and lens replacement surgeries which have seen proven success though are not adopted for there is no incentive, with capital and marketing flowing into remote visits (think the new traveling doctor) and their requisite technologies, and so on. This further lowers the burden on policy pools, while simultaneously lowering the cost of healthcare for everyone in ways you cannot possibly fathom. In conjunction with this, entry-barriers for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies should also be relaxed, as you'll have rapid integration of radically novel technologies for prevention and treatment for the incentive now exists, while simultaneously breaking apart the monopoly that's existed for this part of the corporate world, which further allows the Department of Justice to then hold firms accountable via the Anti-trust Division/laws. This is only possible when the subject markets are operating freely, as consumer alternatives exist, leaving the colluding firms unable to force consumers to pay for their fines without losing market-share.

Over time, this would be an extraordinary transition of the industry, innovation at a rate we've never before seen, alleviating tax and consumer burdens (we're paying less for healthcare, so we now have more expendable income for vacationing, non-profit pursuits, keeping our households afloat), as well those on Medicare for example, allowing for current and subsequent programs to cost a small fraction of what they otherwise cost in the currently closed-markets we have, not to mention a higher number of people paying into a policy pool from all 50 states, rather than 1, translates into an immediate and massive expansion in coverage and lowered premiums on its own. As one

might imagine, larger policy pools will also provide greater scalability, allowing for fund managers to yield larger returns for policy pools, which ensures further expansion of coverage and self-sustainment.

3/
Under these circumstances of eliminating the trillions of dead-weight loss we're currently paying for in the form of artificially higher prices, due to health insurance firms restricted from selling a policy to someone outside of their State within which the firm is founded, it may come to a point where many of the services and goods are nearly or entirely free, further allowing us to eliminate dead-weight loss we cannot yet foresee, as creative destruction under the free market condition will always ensure the utility of healthcare goods and services are at their lowest possible production and operational cost, and thus their price, by always investing in and adopting the current innovations that reduce these costs at any given point in time. Thus, this would allow us to allocate scarce resources, then freed up, toward other parts of the economy, something that grows demand elsewhere, stimulating job-growth, employee benefits, and wage increases throughout those other parts of the economy, expanding new markets, in which these resources, including labor, are now subject to allocation.

Not pursuing this, however, results in the exact opposite. America has never been a country to freeze an industry into stagnation, and where there have been policy failures inducing such conditions, we’ve always looked to eliminate them, because we are the innovative machine of the world – we pride ourselves on this. We are not going to abdicate and relegate our future to a distant, planning elite, because there exist the whims of an ungovernable, uninformed and misinformed mass calling for us to do so. On the practice of nationalization, this would invite further unionization of labor, along with greater destruction of capital as it is no longer possible to maximize utility with the price function governing such gone, only to yield a system in which we pay more for less than the alternative I’ve laid out.

4/
For those who claim a Medicare-for-All implementation is the answer, ask them but one question: Who will subsidize the revenue losses of firms, as non-Medicare recipients have done for decades under a limited amount of people receiving this benefit, when it is extended to everyone? The revenue loss incurred by healthcare providers, due to price controls/ceilings instituted by Medicare, were always, in the form of artificially higher prices for their healthcare goods and services, subsidized by and billed out to those not covered by the artificial price ceilings established by the government. Thus, they were able to remain operational, but when you eliminate this, healthcare providers won’t be able to pay for their operational expenditures and production costs, meaning they will no longer be able to remain operational and exit the market, along with their laborers, as the opportunity-cost is no longer justified, while the profit motive is now gone. This will result in widespread shortages of healthcare goods and services, only increasing the scarcity, when the very object of such a policy begins with the presupposition the price ceiling would lessen scarcity of supply. Imagine if 17% of the economy simply disappeared overnight, as that is exactly what would happen. Healthcare is the largest employment sector in our economy, and thus a collapse here would be devastating in ways you simply cannot imagine, as if the inability to access healthcare wasn’t bad enough. Imagine what ripples this would also send throughout other economies all around the world. Likewise, be wary of the conjecture offered by those who also claim no such danger is posed by leaving private health insurance firms intact, Medicare optional. They hide from you the fact private health insurance premiums would continue to skyrocket, as a result of necessarily subsidizing the revenue losses induced by price ceilings, drying up the pools as more and more

policyholders are forced into Medicare anyway, resulting in the inevitable, aforementioned shortages and collapse of industry.

5/
Do not cave in to those who tout fairy-tales of immediate cost reductions by centrally planning this industry, as it is doomed to collapse from the beginning; and as the years go by, inefficiency becoming all the more apparent as production costs continually inflate, with an ever-consuming bill shelled out to the worker, an incessant barrage of bureaucratic planning will never cease, one plan failing after the other, pension and debt crises made all the worse, as devoid of ethic, unionized government workers pilfer the public trust, entrepreneurship and innovation nonexistent to preserve government-assured labor that would be out-moded by creative destruction. These are not the calls of an American electorate, but opportunists, the greedy and short-sighted who’ve seized on the consequence of a monopolized industry, who intentionally misinform the American people, rather than enlighten their awareness of the ailments plaguing the healthcare system in America. They say more government planning is the answer, when it was the problem all along. The morality of policy has always been measured by its long-term and sustainable result, not the short-term gains and intention.

Jeremy TL;DR-ing again with "muh Russia"

Actually, it has to do with healthcare, the free market solution that doesn't require government planning, but instead knocks out the single regulation responsible for the currently inflated prices we pay.

To those of you who do not wish to see a centrally planned healthcare system and Socialism in this country, this should be your Capitalist alternative, freeing up the health insurance industry, reducing the prices we pay, while expanding private insurance firms' capability to offer greater policy coverage. This is important, because there is a genuine issue with healthcare, and you will not dodge the Socialist bullet by avoiding coming to the table with your own solution.

That's not gonna happen like it or not

What won't happen?

Free market healthcare

It's the only alternative to Socialism, or continuing down the neo-Liberal path we're on, which only serves to continue deepening the crisis, which inevitably yields a Socialist rise.

It has to happen.

People could stop getting fat

Whether or not they do isn't pertinent to embracing our most deeply-seated values and living up to them.

A $.25 bag of fluid shouldn't be billed out $500.

The free market solution is the only alternative to the Socialist platform, their model entirely unsustainable.